Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman recently reported on the U.S. Drought Monitor’s latest numbers, which reveal that “all categories of drought increased across the country between Nov. 20-27, with the largest increase occurring in an area from Alabama northeastward to Virginia.” Freedman also reports on a recent statement by Deutsche Bank Securities’ chief U.S. economist, Joseph LaVorgna, who predicted that “the drought will be responsible for a 0.5 to 1 percent drop in U.S. gross domestic product this year, a significant drop considering the relatively slow pace of growth throughout the year.”

Also, as we have written previously, the drought may have worrying security implications for other countries that are tied to the U.S. through the global food market. And given that a number of these countries have themselves experienced major droughts recently (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Spain, Argentina), this prolonged U.S. drought could have serious global consequences.

The Atlantic ran a piece by Neil Bhatiya of the Century Foundation on Friday, which focuses on “why the extreme risk and uncertainty of rapid climate change requires a new national-security framework.” The most interesting recommendation from Bhatiya centers on the role of the National Security Council in addressing climate risk:

The best first step the president can take is to create a new structure within the foreign policy bureaucracy, answerable to his National Security Council, which will prioritize contingency planning and make recommendations across multiple departments and agencies so that U.S. foreign policy can seriously address a whole series of coming climate catastrophes.

Meanwhile, the Bipartisan Policy Center previewed one of its own recommendations (the full recommendations will not be publicly released until after the inauguration), centered on energy security. Former Senator Bryan Dorgan (D-ND), and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), called for the:

…formation of a National Energy Strategy Council in the White House…Chaired by the Secretary of Energy, the council would bring together the heads of at least 15 agencies with substantive energy responsibilities to hash out policy.

Both of these recommendations are worth considering. Also worth considering would be for the White House to develop a broader leadership framework for addressing both climate and energy security, given the inherent connections between the two. This could include, for example, the creation of a Deputy National Security Advisor that handles the environment, energy and climate change.

CleanTechnica has posted an interesting article detailing five key reasons why U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan appreciate and use solar power technology. The top-line reasons identified are:

1. Solar Power Saves Money

2. Solar Power Saves Planes and Trucks

3. Solar Power Saves Wear and Tear

4. Solar Power is Just Plain Better

5. Solar Power Builds Strong Communities

We would add “solar power saves lives” to that list, given the human cost of protecting fuel convoys in theater. As Department of Defense officials revealed after a review in 2011, “over 3,000 American soldiers or contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys between 2003 and 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This issue will be explored further in a forthcoming documentary “the Burden,” produced by Truman National Security fellow Roger Sorkin. However, the author does allude to this problem under reason #2:

By cutting down on fuel deliveries, the hybrid solar units free up aircraft and trucks for other missions. According to Kidd, the project has resulted in the equivalent of pulling 185 trucks out of fuel convoys.

In turn, that reduces the risk for Soldiers assigned to secure air drops and fuel convoys.

Climate change is the biggest threat to the global security, says a resolution drafted by Indrek Tarand (Greens/EFA, EE) and passed with 474 votes in favour, 80 against and 18 abstentions. Climate change exacerbates natural disasters that are destabilising, especially for vulnerable states, so its potential impact on security should be factored into EU external policies, it warns.

We will continue to watch this space for further developments, as the European Parliament’s suggestions make their way to the other organs of EU governance (namely, the Council of the European Union) that would need to approve them in order to be realized.